# Possible Military Tobacco BAN



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

Ban on tobacco urged in military

*Ban on Tobacco Urged in Military*

By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY 
WASHINGTON - Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking. 
Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.

The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. "We'll certainly be taking that recommendation forward," Smith says.

A tobacco ban would confront a military culture, the report says, in which "the image of the battle-weary soldier in fatigues and helmet, fighting for his country, has frequently included his lit cigarette."

Also, the report said, troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a "stress reliever." The study found that tobacco use in the military increased after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the department supports a smoke-free military "and believes it is achievable." She declined to elaborate on any possible ban.

One in three servicemembers use tobacco, the report says, compared with one in five adult Americans. The heaviest smokers are soldiers and Marines, who have done most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the study says. About 37% of soldiers use tobacco and 36% of Marines. Combat veterans are 50% more likely to use tobacco than troops who haven't seen combat.

Tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity, says the report, which used older data. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends up to $6 billion in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses, says the study, which was released late last month.

Along with a phased-in ban, the report recommends requiring new officers and enlisted personnel to be tobacco-free, eliminating tobacco use on military installations, ships and aircraft, expanding treatment programs and eliminating the sale of tobacco on military property. "Any tobacco use while in uniform should be prohibited," the study says.

The military complicates attempts to curb tobacco use by subsidizing tobacco products for troops who buy them at base exchanges and commissaries, says Kenneth Kizer, a committee member and architect of California's anti-tobacco program.

Seventy percent of profits from tobacco sales - $88 million in 2005 - pays for recreation and family support programs, the study stays.

Strong leadership could make the military tobacco-free in five to 10 years, Kizer says. President Obama, he says, could set an example for the military by ending his own smoking habit once and for all. Last month, Obama said he is "95% cured" but "there are times when I mess up" and smoke.


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

I remember when I was in the Army cigarettes were dirt cheap at the commisary, but not anymore. The military has been anti-tobacco for a while now.


----------



## slyder (Mar 17, 2009)

back in WWI, WWII and Korea they used to include cigarettes in rations!! So its the governments fault they are spending $6 Billion on medical treatments! Theres gonna be alot of troops getting out voluntarily now if they do this. They might as well make drinking illegal for military too. Booze kills more troops than enemy bullets.


----------



## QWKDTSN (Jun 7, 2009)

Good luck with that!


----------



## DSturg369 (Apr 6, 2008)

With plummeting morale in the Military as it is, I think this will be that proverbial straw on that camel's back.

Don't know about everyone else's train of thought on this matter, but I am getting pretty fed up with Big Brother's interventions and forced opinions on what is good for me. Said it before and I'll say it again, I see some rough times ahead for the US Govt. and the people getting tired of the BS.


----------



## dj1340 (Mar 30, 2009)

This does not bode well.


----------



## suretolose (Jul 8, 2009)

I would like to say that there is absolutly no way, but with the way they push this anti- smoking crap you never know.:frusty: when I was in the Navy one of the great perks was when your ship hit International waters the ship's store no longer charged tax on tobacco products. Everyone stocked up.


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

I figure this is the logic driving it:

.mil personnel get .gov healthcare --->Ban tobacco because it "is too costly for the .gov healthcare system ---->National healthcare gets passed for civilans----> civilians who smoke can't get national healthcare.

Setting a precedent... sure to be followed with Alcohol, sugar, fat, motorcycles, guns....anything that has more risk then a wiffle ball.

Of course, the .gov is shooting themselves in a foot (with a rubber, non-lethal, bullet) by killing their revenue stream even faster as people lose jobs and spend less on non-essential items....


----------



## Acesfull (Dec 9, 2007)

i'd quit the military before i give up cigar smoking


----------



## slyder (Mar 17, 2009)

Acesfull said:


> i'd quit the military before i give up cigar smoking


Im with ya......and I LOVED the USAF!!! I still kick myself for getting out. Id be retiring this year or next if I woulda stayed in. :frusty:


----------



## afilter (Oct 9, 2008)

I know you are not soppose to say never, but my gut reaction is it will never happen, at least not in my carrer. We already have a hard enough time maintaining a drug free Military. Maybe this is no surprise to anyone, but I was amazed at how many kids smoke pot these days....to them it is nothing like beer when I was young.

I do agree theat tobacco use especially cigarettes is on the rise for some of the reasons cited. There were a ton of really young troops smoking during my recent deployment, sometimes just socially.

Alcohol is already banned oversees, I see banning tobacco as more problematic than problem solving.


----------



## Mr.Lordi (May 20, 2007)

Kind of makes one wonder, with the amount of Military personal, everyone who smoked(hypothetically, I doubt every smoker would if this was passed) left, then they would be running, almost, at half capacity. Given the way these two wars are at the moment, were we are extending our troops as is, we could be paving the way for a potential future draft...in theory, anyways, could we not? 

:shocked:

I mean, not anytime soon, but like, if I ever have kids, they could potentially end up feeling the effects of this.


----------



## Mr.Lordi (May 20, 2007)

Mr.Lordi said:


> Kind of makes one wonder, with the amount of Military personal, everyone who smoked(hypothetically, I doubt every smoker would if this was passed) left, then they would be running, almost, at half capacity. Given the way these two wars are at the moment, were we are extending our troops as is, we could be paving the way for a potential future draft...in theory, anyways, could we not?
> 
> :shocked:
> 
> I mean, not anytime soon, but like, if I ever have kids, they could potentially end up feeling the effects of this.


upoun rereading this, I have come to the conclusion that this was a totally whack theory and has no real basis in reality of every happening.

That is what you get for writing what you are thinking without thinking it through to conclusion. lol


----------



## springnr (Dec 21, 2008)

Remembered thinking what the heck when I read this while in Japan last April:


Well I had links to Stars and Stripes articles about Misawa AFB Japan smokin' bans.... but I'm not a gabby type guy an don't have enough post to use URLs.


----------



## youngjackdaddy (May 20, 2009)

To kind of elaborate on what Afilter was saying; it won't happen any time soon. For myself, I wouldn't get many (read any) breaks at work if I didn't smoke. I know a lot of guys that sit in their desks, or work if they don't have a desk job from 0900 until lunch, come back, and do it again till close of business. It's harsh, but that's what the military is about, you work hard. Thankfully, I get my smoke breaks, I will even go and grab the younger guys and non-smokers to make sure they get off their butts too. 

The Army (only service I have experience with this but I assume it applies to all the branches) pushes a ton of healthy alternatives and tobacco cessation classes are free and come with great benefits but giving up the one thing that takes me away from my computer, e-mails, and ringing phone is something they can't give me.

I'd really love to point out that the Army in any way, shape, or form is NOT a healthy lifestyle no matter how you look at it. Even without the current conflicts going on it's a stressful environment, you're often working tight deadlines and have bosses breathing down your neck looking for results and fancy things to put on powerpoint slides (you officers know what I'm talking about ;-) and even our PT is bad for us. Look at a lot of the vets that were in over 5 years even. Tons of back, knee, and shoulder problems. God forbid we run on grass or a track regularly, cement is VERY high impact when running. Sit ups are horrible for your back and even Army docs admit that (the good ones at least), and who hasn't had to lift something with less people then is really needed and had to carry it through doors that seem to shrink each trip back and lift them into some type of vehicle. 

Smoking is the least of the military's problem. Let's start by banning incoming mortar fire first and work our way up. We're fighting to defend freedom and have ours taken away fairly often. We volunteered so yeah, kind of our fault, but at the same time, why is big brother trying to rain on our parade so much?

Ach, just my two cents, sorry I ranted a bit.


----------



## golfermd (Feb 18, 2009)

Thanks for your response. The last Democratic administration thought that the military was their personal social lab. So this is just a continuation of it with an 8 year lapse. I doubt it will ever really get off the ground. Too many congressman and senators have military districts (read that as votes). Also, there already is some very serious dissention within their ranks that will do nothing but get worse as the country begins to realize the ramifications of things like this. Do we really want to be preaching to a kid with a back pack, etc, standing in 110 degree heat with mortars, RPG's and rifle shot coming at him/her? Leave this kids alone. Let them enjoy what personal liberties and freedoms they have.


----------



## MrRogers (Jun 15, 2009)

Tough call. I'd never want to see anyone deprived of their right to enjoy pipes or cigars, but honestly guys, if this initiative caused many cigarette smokers to quit, I'd have to be all for it. Seen to many family members deal with cancer from friggin cigarettes.

MrR


----------



## Acesfull (Dec 9, 2007)

For those who think it is crazy think again... the democratic administration of Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio found it wise to BAN ALCOHOL on all state funded military installations... yeah... we cannot after a drill weekend hang out together on our base patio and have a few beers anymore and enjoy the comradery we once had. Now everyone just splits and says see ya next month..... This totally killed celebration plans for our unit's 60th anny plans this September as well.. yeah we are adults who have to be treated like children but we are trusted to protect our nation's sovereignty and carry weapons and be responsible with them.... i dont get it.


----------



## Dgar (Sep 12, 2006)

Lets see, these young men have volunteered to put put there lives in harms way to protect our freedoms. while theres could be taken away.. Lets just hope common sense prevails.


----------



## DSturg369 (Apr 6, 2008)

Dgar said:


> Lets see, these young men have volunteered to put put there lives in harms way to protect our freedoms. *while theres could be taken away*.. Lets just hope common sense prevails.


Make no mistakes, it's not "could be" it "IS", as are ours.

We have often seen "Civil Rights" marches on state and the national capitols, but I wonder if a "Basic Rights March" would have any bearing...??


----------



## Ndimarco (Jan 4, 2009)

First off WOW to ACESFULL, Im in the AF and had not heard about the ban on alcohol on Military bases in Ohio. Thanks absolutely ridiculous. I used to regularly partake in a beer or two after a long day of flightline maintenance on Fridays on the patio at work. 

Having said that, I have been on deployments in the middle east where there is no drinking, and as much as I don't like it, I see the point. Its over 100 degrees, blazing sun, and theres always immeninent danger. I can see the point of reducing dehydration, and needing people being on their toes 24/7. 

However! To ban smoking, (or even drinking stateside) is an absolute crock! Smoking a cigar at the Gazebo after a 12 - 16 hour shift with some buddies, taking about what plans they have when they get back was a tremendous relief of stress. 

Furthermore, I remember when AETC said that Airmen can't smoke on base while in training, just led to a huge gathering right outside the gate of smokers. To the public I'm sure it looked awefull, to drive by a military installation and see 40+ people standing there smoking on the street corner. 

I see this as a rule that simply won't be able to be enforced. Everyone, myself included, will just go home and smoke. This will of course lead to a few things. 

One: Some people will get the chip on their shoulder and become smoking police, using rank to enforce this rule, and create a ridge between the ranks. 

Two: Money will be shorted from base funds. With BX, or NBX not selling tobacco anymore, profits will go down, and more funding will be sought from the federal level to maintain base activities, therefore increasing taxes on everyone in the public. 

Three: As if security forces don't have enough on their plate, they will now have to concentrate efforts on writing tickets to people who smoke on base, who have cigarette butts in their cars ect. 

I'm sure we could speculate a ton of other reasons why this is a bad idea, all for the one idea that we could possibly make a group of people healthier. 

I see more people fail PT tests due to a bigger waist from eating unhealthy, and not getting time to work out, then not being able to complete a 1.5 mile run. 

Sorry for the rant, just this is ridiculous nonsense, that goes in the complete opposite direction of common sense!


----------



## nativetexan_1 (Jan 1, 2008)

Putting a guy in a fox hole (in the broadest sense of the word) and taking away his smokes is pretty heartless, if you ask me.


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

Not to sound cruel, but I'd much prefer they focus less on making them feel better with tobacco (there are many other things that can relieve stress after all) and focus more on getting them better equipment... The military already cuts corners on providing proper and secure equipment, and some serious upgrades need to be made, to the average kit and specialized kit.

Of course, this doesn't mean this is what their current plan of action is leading towards, but it's what I think of.


----------



## veteranvmb (Aug 6, 2009)

Delsana said:


> Not to sound cruel, but I'd much prefer they focus less on making them feel better with tobacco (there are many other things that can relieve stress after all) and focus more on getting them better equipment... The military already cuts corners on providing proper and secure equipment, and some serious upgrades need to be made, to the average kit and specialized kit.
> 
> .


 This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. I could write on and on about this. The equipment we have sometimes is so bad and outdated, especially with the reserves and national guard. 
When we went into Iraq in 2003, we had improper gun oil, which was clogging our firearms. Everything we had was made for european woodland tape warfare. We had to have our families send us proper gun grease. 
Not everyone was supplied with desert boots, our humvees were not uparmored, no hand held anti tank rpgs, no desert flack jackets, It was a mess. 
As far as smoking, it was always a marines or soldiers right. When he cant light up, he would chew. 
We are talking about a military who supplies us with amphetamines to stay away, but now wants to take away the nicotine. 
So amphetamines are good, nicotine isnt. We had so many marines who went a little bit sick, because no liquor was allowed by islam law. 
Hell, my soldiers couldnt have "magazines", liquor and we werent allowed to fly or present the us flag on our vehicles. 
I better stop, I am getting mad.

Much regards Jerry


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

"As far as smoking, it was always a marines or soldiers right. When he cant light up, he would chew."

I know a few people that were or are marines or soldiers, and to be truthful they don't know many people smoked on or off duty, or during deployment, but that might just have been them, the point being however that surely there are better ways to relax and other options and alternatives, even if the prospect of smoking is taken away. Understand I'm not going for or against here, I'm just trying to state that while it is unfortunate and somewhat infringing that a ban took place, it also makes sense to a degree, especially with most the country yelling about health problems.

On the topic of amphetamines, I can't agree with that, so in truth while they should be able to do as they like, the actual procurement and distribution of it via the camps, forts, or command centers, is still something I just can't see truly "necessary". And on the topic of being able to do one but not the other, I can't agree with amphetamines at all, drugs like that just aren't something I support.

My main focus however is simply that armor, weaponry, and technology is quite inferior for most deployments and there is really no reason to be "confused" about the number of deaths in Iraq, if proper military procedures, tactics, and equipment aren't being used, or distributed.

It truly is idiotic the things our country sometimes does.


----------



## Stench (Aug 17, 2009)

So it's okay to put a soldier in a position where he or she can get shot, blown up, gassed, or stabbed...but you better not give them a smoke!!?

I say give them whatever the H#ll they want!


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

The question becomes do they even want it, or are they simply accepting it when funds could be used to procure better things for a soldier.

In addition, is there something they need more?


----------



## veteranvmb (Aug 6, 2009)

Delsana said:


> "As far as smoking, it was always a marines or soldiers right. When he cant light up, he would chew."
> 
> On the topic of amphetamines, I can't agree with that, so in truth while they should be able to do as they like, the actual procurement and distribution of it via the camps, forts, or command centers, is still something I just can't see truly "necessary". And on the topic of being able to do one but not the other, I can't agree with amphetamines at all, drugs like that just aren't something I support.
> 
> .


 For those of you who may not understand, How do you think plane crews or pilots are able to sustain a 14 hour mission? Or a scout sniper tandem, who is in the middle of nowhere and must stay awake. 
Or forward observers during a long pronounced battle. A little known secret fact in the military is the distribution of amphetamines, for those whose job mission needs it. 
If you dont think so, Gas up your vehicle, get on the hiway at nighttime, go about 20 miles an hour for 15 hours, and see if you can stay awake, let alone fly an aircraft and keep checking your panel. Theres no way. 
Thats a little unknown part of military supply. The military doesnt deny it, nor they should. 
No matter how fit a pilot or crew are, the human body is not made to stay awake for such long periods of high stress and monotony.

Much regards Jerry


----------

